There may be no love lost, but to suggest that they do not see a common enemy in the U.S. is a bit short sighted. Besides that, if I was binny, oh excuse me, you probably want me to show him some respect too, Osama bin Laden, I’d be trying to distance myself form Saddam, also. But even more interesting is the fact that Bob would put one ounce of credence into “anything” bin Laden would say and all the while trying to suggest we are being lead astray by George Bush…..

Gee, another one of Bob’s great sources…. Bob is now quoting Osama bin Laden to defend Iraq…. He believes Osama bin Laden over Beorge Bush, Colin Powel, well let’s just call it the entire Bush administration. Amazing!

Actually, Osama bin Laden called Saddam Hussein a "Communist," a "Socialist," and an "infidel." That is, of course, FLOSUM, if you consider the virtually every major newspaper in America, including the Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel, a credible enough source for you. I don't put much credence in anything Osama bin Laden says. The issue -- again FLOSUM -- if you have any understanding whatsoever of the notion of CONTEXT, is whether or not there is a evident "nexus" or "bond" or "link" between al-Quaida and the government of Iraq. Saddam Hussein has denied such a link, Osama bin Laden's very public insults of Saddam Hussein (within Islamic circles calling someone an "infidel" is about as nasty as you can get & remember Osama bin Laden fought against the Communists in Afghanistan) are good evidence that those two don't like each other very well. Neither of them like the United States; we've known that for some time. For the Secretary of State of this country to REFER TO OSAMA BIN LADEN'S REMARKS as proof of some kind of "nexus" (meaning bond or close link, etc.) is patent nonsense. Their only commonality at present is their hatred of the U.S. and bin Laden has made it clear that that hatred will only intensify if we invade Iraq. We'll make recruiting for al-Quaida considerably easier among a number of Islamic states who have no love for Saddam Hussein at the moment but who see an invasion of Iraq as an attack on the people of Iraq and, because most of those people are Islamic, an attack on Islam.

Maybe the solution is to Nuke the entire middle east out of existance and start over by moving friendly settlers in to the now emptly land that is available.

The National Institutes of Health has just released the results of a $200 million research study completed under a grant to Johns Hopkins.The new study has found that women who carry a little extra weight live longer than the men who mention it.

Let's see....we have Bob Doolittle on the one side telling us that Colin Powell is full of utter nonsense. Both men make their arguements based on the logic of what they see, and they are both looking at the same thing. Which one has more credibility? This is really going to be a hard choice to make.

>>Dagger stated: I would be interested in seeing a source for these connections.<<

Following a large anti-war march in D.C., CNN reported the information regarding the funding by the American Communist Party, it was also reported on new via the radio. I apologize for not knowing the exact date that it was reported, I was just so taken aback by the report that it was a fact that stuck with me.

***My comments are not meant to anger or offend they are my opinion and are meant as only that...well, usually.***

Dagger, in reply to you being interested in souces citing the communists anti-war support I give you this, as printed in the Union Leader, from the New Hampshire Sunday News.

From the Article: The political left in America has chosen to march with Stalin

>>The marches in Washington and San Francisco were chiefly sponsored, as was last October’s anti-war march in Washington, by a group the Times chose to call in its only passing reference “the activist group International Answer.” . . . International ANSWER is a front group for the Communist Workers World Party. The Workers World Party is, literally, a Stalinist organization. It rose out of a split within the old Socialist Workers Party over the Soviet Union’s 1956 invasion of Hungary — the breakaway Workers World Party was all for the invasion. ANSWER today unquestioningly supports any despotic regime that lays any claim to socialism, or simply to anti-Americanism. It supported the butchers of Beijing after the slaughter of Tiananmen Square. It supports Saddam and his Baathist torture-state. It supports the last official Stalinist state, North Korea, in the mass starvation of its citizens. It supported Slobodan Milosevic after the massacre at Srebrenica. It supports the mullahs of Iran, and the narco-gangsters of Colombia and the bus-bombers of Hamas.<<

Also, if you are looking for more articles showing that communist parties and supporters of ANSWER and the Workers World Party just do a search in Google news for Anti-War Support for by Communist Parties and it will bring a slew of articles from around the world showing communist anti-war support.

I will also state that I AM NOT SAYING THAT ALL ANTI-WAR SUPPORTERS ARE COMMUNISTS! JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE ANTI-WAR DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE A COMMUNIST! (This was in CAPS for Zeus - just because they have anti-war bumper stickers I am not saying they are communists.) Many of them are no different than you or me, they are fighting for what they believe in. It should just be known that many times we are so interested in fighting for our causes that we become blind who we are aligning ourselves with. And at this particular time in America, with the threat of war upon us, anti-American groups will often use pro-Americans to further their agendas. And these pro-Americans are often unaware of this, which is a fact that is sad but true.

***My comments are not meant to anger or offend they are my opinion and are meant as only that...well, usually.***

I understand the meaning of context perfectly well. (Glad to see Bob is never guilty of talking down or in a demeaning fashion, he only accuses others of that.) And I also understand when someone is taking things out context or reading meaning into it that does not exist or when the context is pure bs…. Seems you are the one that put yourself firmly on the side of bin Laden finding him more trustworthy then Bush/Powel.

Abuse of words has been the great instrument of sophistry and chicanery, of party, faction, and division of society. - John Adams

DAVE AND FLOSUM: Credibility is at issue which each utterance (Aristotle). I do not deny Colin Powell's credibility in many matters of state or military policy. I do not, however, regard his utterances as infallible no matter what the subject. I am surprised, DAVE, that you would make such a sophistic argument. The logic and evidence is straightforward here. Osama bin Laden provided a statement in which he refers to Saddam Hussein by name as an "infidel," a "Communist," and a "Socialist." All names which are heavily derogatory in the Arab-Islamic world. Colin Powell, virtually within minutes of the release of the bin Laden remarks, states that the remarks show a "close nexus" between "terrorism (bin Laden) and "the state) (Hussein's Iraq). Now if you want to argue that that statement ought to be accepted because it was uttered by Colin Powell, then I would suggest that you are prepared to accept virtually any "Doublespeak" uttered by this administration -- because it is the administration. If Bush and Company say up is down, or black is white, or day is night -- according to your logic -- that must be accepted because they are credible people. I've said it before, "Nonsense has the ultimately fatal disadvantage of being nonsense."

PARIS (AP)--Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz said in a televised interview Thursday that his country lacks the means to launch a military operation against Israel should a conflict erupt. "We don't have the means to attack Israel that we had in 1991," Aziz told France-2 television, referring to the year that the Gulf War took place. "We aren't a threat to anyone." "We can't talk of reprisals when we don't have the means," Aziz said, speaking in an interview live from Rome, where he was to meet with Pope John Paul II. Israel's army is preparing for an expected U.S. attack to begin in the coming weeks, and is taking precautions against the possibility that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein will again fire Scud missiles at Israel, as he did in 1991.

(So, what is it? They do not have the means to attack Isreal or they are going to kick the living **** out of us if we attack? If you can do one you would have to be able to do the other right?)

Sorry Bob, but in this matter we simply have a difference of opinion which each person must evaluate for himself/herself. You have a predictable tendency to label anything that disagrees with your opinions as nonsense. To one extent or other I suppose we all do this but I really think you do it more than is warranted. I have dealt with Colin Powell personally and trust both his honesty and integrity. He is not an idiot, is not one to be led by anyone, and would not say something that he did not know to be the truth. Your credibility, although I would not openly question it, remains an unknown factor, and any statement you might make could hardly be used as a proof regardless of the weight that you yourself might give it. My own opinions are, at best, just that, but I am afraid that the real logic here plays for Colin Powell and not for Bob Doolittle. Your next statement will doubtless brand all that don't see it your way as mindless idiots who simply accept the "double-speak" of the Bush administration as a baby gobbles up pablum. I suggest that perhaps it is you that are simply gobbling up the pablum offered by the anti-war, anti-government, left-wing, anarchist, and whatever-else elements that appeal to your particular personality. At base level, my opinion certainly has at least equal weight with yours on this issue.

I think that Colin Powell finds himself in the unenviable position of carrying water for a man he probably suspects is mentally retarded.

When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a meteorite hurtling to the Earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much hosed no matter what you wish for. Unless it's death by meteor.

Brian: Interesting supposition. Of course Colin Powell could have had the Republican nomination for president himself if he had wanted it. His choice, long after the election, to serve as Secretary of State would have given him plenty of time to decide if President Bush was deficient or not. I would postulate that his decision to serve represented quite a good bit of respect for the President. Powell is one of those rare guys who would resign rather than add support to a position that he does not believe in. I suspect that there is someone who is retarded in this whole equation but I doubt that it is either Colin Powell or George W. Bush.

Dave, if I am not mistaken he could have also had the Democratic nomination also. I know he was highly recruited to join the Dem. Party before he had committed. But not sure what they promised him but would have to guess they would have had to meet the offer the Repubs had on the table.

Well let's review how the game is played. Just a hypothetical example strictly for purposes of review. Let's suppose Bob said to Dave, "You are a reactionary conservative militarist pig!" Then Flosum immediately said, "See, that clearly shows that Bob and Dave have a close relationship." To which Tundra then says, "Wait a minute! That's crazy!" Bob just insulted Dave publicly; that shows a hostile relationship not a close one." To which Dopey says, "Tundra is just offering his 'opinion' which can be dismissed because (1) it's just his opinion (and all opinions are equal); (2) Flosum has a lot more credibility than Tundra; and (3) Tundra obviously likes Bob more than he likes Flosum. That folks is how our conservative friends on this chat site play "Let's-muddle-the-discussion." I am beginning to believe that Dave's military background included a substantial amount of psychological warfare training. If you can't defeat an opponent by direct confrontation then confuse the issue (s) and attempt to discredit them and what they say by insisting that they are arrogantly insisting on their own "opinion."

Ok, ok…wait now, I can figure this out…. Dave’s a conservative pig, Tundra’s a crazy militant pig, no just a militant, no wait that wasn‘t Tundra at all, sorry Tundra. that was, that was Dave that was Dave the militant that‘s it… It was, was… Tundra is in welfare training.. no that’s Dave’s in warfare training…. Now hang on now…. I’ll get this…. Now, Flosum? Flosum? flosum? Oh he*ll he’s all of the above! hey wait that’s me!! Ok…..ok… I said Bob is reactionary militarist trainee….no I never said that…. Ok…ok.. Here we go now… just a minute… gosh Bob I guess you win… I just can’t figure this out!

Hello? G-dub? It’s flosum here… got to call off the war, Bob is muddled… I mean he has us muddled… got to call the whole thing off!!

When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a meteorite hurtling to the Earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much hosed no matter what you wish for. Unless it's death by meteor.

Hey Brian, your post “I think that Colin Powell finds himself in the unenviable position of carrying water for a man he probably suspects is mentally retarded.” standing alone, comes off as “cruel, mean, nasty and asinine”, at least that is my opinion. I am sorry if I jumped to a conclusion. Let me take a few minutes to re-evaluate now that you have given further impute.

Ok, I’ve done my re-evaluation, I find you’re your comments cruel, mean, nasty and asinine with or without the little smiley faces. Your follow-up post maybe even more so, thinking you can explain away that sort of trashing by saying oh gee I was only kidding….

As far as taking this too seriously, you need to go back and look at some of my posts…if anything, I don’t take it serious enough….

Back to your post….

It amazes me how someone can post such a derogatory remark like that and then take such defensive posture when someone reacts to it. Hey, you only did it to get the reaction….. Let’s be honest….

I’m sure you are a good guy and I would not judge you based on one statement like that, not at all. But unfortunately it’s just another insult for the sake of, well just insulting someone. I fail to see where it serves much purpose. It’s certainly not humorous. I’m guessing it’s not the real Brian….. You do know there is a “delete post” function right…???

Oh yeah and one other thing…. What does your rodent’s buttocks have to do with any of this? (oh, man I left myself wide open on that one!!!)

Webmaster: I guess that since I typed the offending word rather than spoke it that I'll have to have my mom wash my hands with soap. Lesson learned. JFlosum: Not much I can do about your being offended by my remarks. To me it is no different from rooting for your favorite sports team or trash talking the other guys team. All of politics is a game as well. I can and do respect Colin Powell because he has certainly earned that respect and more. I honestly do not believe that he is on the Bush team because their ideology is the same. I think he is there to serve his country AND to gain insight and experience for his own candidacy in the near future. I wish him well. On the other hand... I think that George W. Bush is not only a nitwit but quite possibly the worst president in memory. By the end of his one term presidency he and his cronies will have accomplished what many thought was impossible only a few short years ago - making Bill Clinton look great. You may be a fan of Dubya and that is OK by me. It's a free country after all. As for me, I'm on the other side of the fence and look forward to the day when that smarmy little weasel gets the boot. Ain't America great!

When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a meteorite hurtling to the Earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much hosed no matter what you wish for. Unless it's death by meteor.